From Science @NASA: Let’s hope it doesn’t taste like chicken or smell like feet.
NASA’s daring plan to visit the sun took a giant leap forward today with the selection of five key science investigations for the Solar Probe+ spacecraft.
Slated to launch no later than 2018, the smart car-sized spacecraft will plunge directly into the atmosphere of the sun, aiming to solve some of the biggest mysteries of solar physics. Today’s announcement means that researchers can begin building sensors for unprecedented in situ measurements of the solar system’s innermost frontier.
“Solar Probe+ is going where no spacecraft has gone before,” says Lika Guhathakurta, Solar Probe+ program scientist at NASA HQ. “For the first time, we’ll be able to ‘touch, taste and smell’ the sun.”
Last year, NASA invited top researchers around the world to submit proposals detailing possible science investigations for the pioneering spacecraft. Thirteen proposals were received and five have been selected:
–SWEAP, the Solar Wind Electrons Alphas and Protons Investigation: The most abundant particles in the solar wind are electrons, protons and helium ions. SWEAP will count these particles and measure their properties, even “sweeping up” some of them in a special Solar Probe Cup for direct analysis. The principal investigator is Justin C. Kasper of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Mass.
–WISPR, the Wide-field Imager for Solar Probe Plus: WISPR is a telescope that will make 3D images of the sun’s atmosphere similar to medical CAT scans. WISPR can actually see the solar wind, allowing it to image clouds and shock waves as they approach and pass the spacecraft. This telescope is an important complement to the spacecraft’s in situ instruments, which sample the plasmas that WISPR images. The principal investigator is Russell Howard of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC.
–FIELDS, The Fields Investigation for Solar Probe Plus: This instrument will make direct measurements of electric and magnetic fields, radio emissions, and shock waves which course through the sun’s atmospheric plasma. FIELDS also turns Solar Probe Plus into a giant dust detector, registering voltage signatures when specks of space dust hit the spacecraft’s antenna. The principal investigator is Stuart Bale of the University of California in Berkeley.
–ISIS, Integrated Science Investigation of the Sun: The ISIS EPI-Hi and EPI-Lo instruments will monitor electrons, protons and ions which are accelerated to high energies by shock waves in the sun’s atmosphere. These are the very same particles that pose a threat to astronauts in space, disable satellites, and ionize Earth’s upper atmosphere.
–Solar Probe+ Observatory Scientist: This was a proposal not for an instrument, but for a person. The principal investigator, Marco Velli, becomes the mission’s Observatory Scientist. In the years ahead, he will become deeply familiar with the spacecraft and its construction, helping to ensure that adjacent in situ instruments do not interfere with one another as they sample the solar environment. He will also guide the mission’s “big picture” science investigations after Solar Probe+ enters the sun’s atmosphere.
“The sensors we’ve selected to ride aboard Solar Probe+ are designed to solve some of the biggest mysteries of solar physics,” says Dick Fisher, head of NASA’s Heliophysics Division in Washington DC.
Why is the sun’s atmosphere is so much hotter than its surface? And what propels the solar wind?
“We’ve been struggling with these questions for decades,” says Fisher. “Solar Probe+ should finally provide some answers.”
Solar Probe+ will likely discover new mysteries, too, in a realm that no other spacecraft has dared enter. At closest approach, Solar Probe+ will be 7 million km or 9 solar radii from the sun. There, the spacecraft’s carbon-composite heat shield must withstand temperatures as high as 2000 degrees C and survive blasts of radiation that would quickly disable other missions. From these near distances inside the sun’s atmosphere, the solar disk will loom 23 times wider than it does in the skies of Earth.
“What will we find there?” wonders Guhathakurta. “This is truly unexplored territory.” By design, Solar Probe’s winning instruments are sufficiently versatile to investigate many different kinds of phenomena. Whatever comes along–be it electric or magnetic, high- or low-energy, wavy or turbulent–they should be able to measure it.
“The possibilities for discovery,” she says, “are off the charts.”
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The electric field resulting from reconnection is caused by neutral plasma moving in existing magnetic fields.”
No.
The electric field resulting from Electric Double Layers is caused by charged particles in motion emanating a magnetic field, and, then, a combination of those charged particles and their attendent magnetic field colliding with another body of charged particles and its attendent magnetic field,which, then, causes oppositely charged particles to line-up oppositely from each other, and, then, other charged particles flow into the space between the oppositely charged particles, which, then, are accelerated.
It is the electric field in conjunction with the magnetic field, which causes the charged particles to accelerate in opposite directions (electrons in one direction & ions in the other direction).
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The fact that the Universe is permeated by magnetic fields [and no large-scale electric fields] is already part of the empirical confirmation.”
False.
Science can’t detect by remote sensing methods electric fields or electric currents, that’s why initial “magnetic reconnection” hypothesis in the 1940’s didn’t consider electric fields or electric currents. Only in situ observation & measurement can detect electric fields and electric currents.
But Science does know that electric fields cause charged particle acceleration and there is plenty of evidence, synchroton radiation being the best, that charged particles are accelerated all over the Universe by electric fields.
Nebular hypothesis of planet formation — Kant late 1700’s
Black hole hypothesis — 1915 (talk of black bodies late 1700’s)
“magnetic reconnection” — 1946 (Electric Double Layer was never widely entertained in astronomy) This whole debate, here, is testimony to the inability to revise ideas based on empirical evidence.
But the tale will be told by the coming in situ observation & measurement.
So-called “magnetic reconnection” supporters can’t nail down their idea. Electric Double Layer supporters already have nailed down their idea because they know exactly what it looks like and how it behaves as they have a complete qualitative & quantitative description and explanation.
Now, all Electric Double Layer supporters need is the high resolution data derived from in situ observation & measurement forth coming from NASA’s in situ experiments.
So we’ll find out, one way or the other.
Besides, Dr. Svalgaard, you still haven’t distinguished the observations & measurements of Electric Double Layers in auroral dynamics from the so-called “magnetic reconnection” dynamics already outlined by reference to the specific physical forces and matter dynamics.
Why?
Because there is nothing to distinguish, they are the same physical process.
Sadly, you carry the burden of your age cohort in astronomy (except for a few far-sighted individuals like Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel prize winner in physics) which largely dismissed electromagnetism, even though it is a Fundamental Force, and, now, can’t bear to admit they made a huge error.
Younger scientists are now breaking free of your age cohort’s group think and this younger generation is considering electromagnetism as is being expressed by NASA and the in situ experiments it is conducting.
Change in scientific thinking is gradual:
“A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” — Max Planck
James F. Evans says:
September 10, 2010 at 3:25 pm
The electric field resulting from Electric Double Layers is caused by charged particles in motion
What makes them move in the first place? The only way to separate charges of opposite sign [if not separated: no electric field and no current] in a plasma is by a magnetic field.
synchroton radiation being the best
that radiation comes about from movement in a magnetic field
Nebular hypothesis of planet formation — Kant late 1700′s
Black hole hypothesis — 1915 (talk of black bodies late 1700′s)
“magnetic reconnection” — 1946 (Electric Double Layer was never widely entertained in astronomy) This whole debate, here, is testimony to the inability to revise ideas based on empirical evidence.
All of these are mainstays of current science as pursued by our best and brightest young people.
Besides, Dr. Svalgaard, you still haven’t distinguished the observations & measurements of Electric Double Layers in auroral dynamics from the so-called “magnetic reconnection” dynamics already outlined by reference to the specific physical forces and matter dynamics.
The most distinguishing factor is where the effect take place. E.g. for the aurora, the EDLs are found within the aurora close to the Earth, while reconnection takes place hundreds of times further away in the far tail of the magnetosphere. But, again, the issue is what causes what.
Why?
Younger scientists are now breaking free of your age cohort’s group think and this younger generation is considering electromagnetism as is being expressed by NASA and the in situ experiments it is conducting.
I don’t see that happening at all. Marco Velli, for instance, is a young and promising scientist in charge of interpreting the reconnection data.
rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it
Alfven is already dead and there are no young scientists taking up his [erroneous] views.
Dr. Svalgaard:
I know this thread is played out, we’ve made our respective arguments.
But I do have a question for you:
If after the NASA in situ observations & measurements are collected, analyzed, and interpreted, it turns out those observations & measurements reveal that the physical process in question is an Electric Double Layer, because the electric fields, magnetic fields, charged particle location, direction, and velocity, & location of charged particle acceleration are that of the Electric Double Layer physical process, will you accept that the process is an Electric Double Layer?
And, if that turns out to be the case, will you discard the concept & term magnetic reconnection and encourage others who share your viewpoint to do the same?
James F. Evans says:
September 12, 2010 at 10:25 am
If after the NASA in situ observations & measurements are collected, analyzed, and interpreted, it turns out those observations & measurements reveal that the physical process in question is an Electric Double Layer, because the electric fields, magnetic fields, charged particle location, direction, and velocity, & location of charged particle acceleration are that of the Electric Double Layer physical process, will you accept that the process is an Electric Double Layer?
The question is ill-posed. EDLs exist and have been observed in the aurorae, but are caused by reconnection [and is thus not the same as MR]. So if EDLs are observed, I’ll take that as strong evidence for existence of MR.
And, if that turns out to be the case, will you discard the concept & term magnetic reconnection and encourage others who share your viewpoint to do the same?
So, no reason to discard MR; on the contrary the mission will have been a success in establishing MR as the universal process it is. And you might [in the spirit of your questions] accept that.
Dr. Svalgaard:
The question is not ill-posed or inappropriate.
It’s a direct question.
But your answer is informative.
Your answer makes clear you can’t conceive or entertain the possibility that the physical process in question could be an Electric Double Layer (and would not be able to accept such a physical finding if it was made).
You dismiss it as a possibility before the observations & measurements have been collected, analyzed, and interpreted.
That’s not good scientific methodology, rather, it’s an expression of dogma.
Dr. Svalgaard, your mind is already made up, and, apparently no amount of evidence can change your mind. The position you take demonstrates you have no capability to be objective about the analysis & interpretation of the future observations & measurements.
Your mind is already made up.
Scientists need to be able to consider various possibilities — particularly before the observations & measurements are made. Also, scientists must be able to accept experimental results which disagree with their hypothesis and/or opinions.
Scientists must be able to revise or change their hypothesis and/or opinion in the face of contradicting experimental results or explain why the results doesn’t invalidate their hypothesis and/or opinion.
It’s clear by your answer that you can’t be objective about the scientific question at issue.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “So, no reason to discard MR; on the contrary the mission will have been a success in establishing MR as the universal process it is.”
Apparently, you have already come to a conclusion before the experiment has been conducted…
That’s not how Science advances.
James F. Evans says:
September 12, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Your answer makes clear you can’t conceive or entertain the possibility that the physical process in question could be an Electric Double Layer (and would not be able to accept such a physical finding if it was made).
An EDL is not a process, but a state that may result from a process, namely in case of cosmic plasmas, Magnetic Reconnection. I have asked you a direct question: “how does an EDL form?” What provides the separation of charge on the two layers? The only way we know of in a cosmic plasma with high conductivity is by means of a magnetic field, that can deflect charges of one sign in one direction and charges of the other sign in the opposite direction.
Scientists need to be able to consider various possibilities — particularly before the observations & measurements are made. Also, scientists must be able to accept experimental results which disagree with their hypothesis and/or opinions.
Both MR and EDLs have been observed, and there are no disagreements between observations and theory. Now, lay people often have a problem with this because of their ignorance of the physics.
Dr. Svalggard stated: “I have asked you a direct question: ‘how does an EDL form?'”
And, Evans, September 10, 2010 at 3:25 pm, answered:
“The electric field resulting from Electric Double Layers is caused by charged particles in motion emanating a magnetic field, and, then, a combination of those charged particles and their attendent magnetic field colliding with another body of charged particles and its attendent magnetic field,which, then, causes oppositely charged particles to line-up oppositely from each other, and, then, other charged particles flow into the space between the oppositely charged particles, [where an electric field is present] which, then, are accelerated.
It is the electric field in conjunction with the magnetic field, which causes the charged particles to accelerate in opposite directions (electrons in one direction & ions in the other direction).”
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The only way we know of in a cosmic plasma with high conductivity is by means of a magnetic field, that can deflect charges of one sign in one direction and charges of the other sign in the opposite direction.”
But not accelerate charged particles…an electric field is required to accelerate charged particles.
And, as I’ve stated many times in this discussion, magnetic fields play a signifcant role along with electric fields in the over all process of Electric Double Layers, actually, magnetic fields play an equal role along with electric fields (as an expression of the reciprical nature of Electromagnetism as reflected in Maxwell’s equations and demonstrated in laboratory experiments).
It is Dr. Svalgaard who wants to focus on one force to the exclusion of all other forces.
An absence of either the electric or magnetic field would prevent the physical process in question from occuring as stated in the “magnetic reconnection” scientific papers, themselves, presented, herein.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Both MR and EDLs have been observed, and there are no disagreements between observations and theory.”
Yes, Electric Double Layers have been observed in space plasma.
But note:
Stuart Bale
Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States.
ABSTRACT BODY: “Many of our basic ideas on the plasma physics of acceleration, energy flow, and dissipation, and structure of the solar wind have never been rigorously confronted by direct experimental measurements in the region where these processes are actually occurring…”
So, this is an experiment of first impression in terms of location.
So, again, Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “So, no reason to discard MR; on the contrary the mission will have been a success in establishing MR as the universal process it is.”
Apparently, you have already come to a conclusion before the experiment has been conducted…
Or in other words, Dr. Svalgaard has a pre-determined result before the experiment has been conducted…and, is determined to claim a particlular result no matter what the actual observations & measurements.
And, even though I have repeatedly requested Dr. Svalgaard to distinguish the specific physical processes outline in the two sets of papers, Electric Double Layer and “magnetic reconnection”, respectively, he has failed to do so.
Because there is nothing to distinguish, they are the same physical process.
It’s not simply two disembodied magnetic fields pressing together that consitute this process, but rather, the “acceleration [of charged particles], energy flow [expressed as kinetic energy of charged particles], and dissipation, and structure of the solar wind…”
And as the Bale abstract makes clear these processes entail electric fields, magnetic fields, charged particle location, direction, and velocity, & location of charged particle acceleration.
As I’ve argued right along.
But, just to be clear…in regards to this NASA experiment, I’ll wait for the collected data. And, then, compare the data to the observations & measurements Science already has obtained.
But apparently, based on Dr. Svalgaard’s responses, it doesn’t matter what the results turn out to be, he’ll claim “magnetic reconnection”…determined to fit a square peg into a round hole, if necessary.
James F. Evans says:
September 12, 2010 at 2:54 pm
“The electric field resulting from Electric Double Layers is caused by charged particles in motion emanating a magnetic field…
Here you supposed that the EDL already exists, thus you do not explain how it is formed. Charged particles in motion do not create a magnetic field. Or a current for that matter. Or an electric field. You need to have an imbalance of charges of one sign over the opposite sign. So, you need to separate the charges first. A pre-existing magnetic field is the only way to do this.
An absence of either the electric or magnetic field would prevent the physical process in question from occuring as stated in the “magnetic reconnection” scientific papers, themselves, presented, herein.
The electric field is created by the neutral plasma moving across a pre-existing magnetic field, and need not exist before-hand. In fact, cannot exist, because high-conductive plasmas cannot sustain electric fields.
So, this is an experiment of first impression in terms of location.
No, we know the location, and the experiment is designed to give us details of the magnetic reconnection and attendant electric fields created thereby.
Apparently, you have already come to a conclusion before the experiment has been conducted…
The experiment is not designed to prove that reconnection happens. This has been established abundantly already, but to give us detailed information about this process.
Because there is nothing to distinguish, they are the same physical process.
EDL is not a process but a state of the plasma resulting from the process of MR.
It’s not simply two disembodied magnetic fields pressing together that consitute this process
The MR process is not ‘disembodied’. Two parcels of neutral plasma [the ‘body’ if you will] threaded by magnetic fields with different polarity being pressed together will result in MR with electric fields [that can accelerate charges] being generated in the process.
But apparently, based on Dr. Svalgaard’s responses, it doesn’t matter what the results turn out to be, he’ll claim “magnetic reconnection”…determined to fit a square peg into a round hole, if necessary.
I think you’ll find that NASA [and every scientist in the field] will find that they have learned much more about how MR works. This is the purpose of the mission.